Natarajan Charitable Trust Logo

THE N. NATARAJAN CHARITABLE TRUST

in association with

THE MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION,
MADRAS HIGH COURT, CHENNAI

Presents to you

THE N. NATARAJAN CHARITABLE TRUST MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

For

THE N. NATARAJAN ROLLING TROPHY

19th September, 2025 – 21st September, 2025

www.thennatarajancharitabletrust.com

In the Memory of Late Mr. N. Natarajan, Senior Advocate

THE N. NATARAJAN CHARITABLE TRUST MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
in association with
THE MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION

ABOUT US

Thiru. N. Natarajan, Senior Advocate (1931 – 2021)
A Legacy Etched in Law

Thiru. N. Natarajan was one of the most formidable minds in Indian criminal law, whose legal career spanned over six remarkable decades. Beginning in 1955 under the tutelage of stalwarts like P.S. Kailasam and S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, he quickly distinguished himself through his analytical brilliance, compelling courtroom presence, and unwavering dedication to the cause of justice.

Appointed as Public Prosecutor in 1975 and designated as a Senior Advocate in 1978, he became a household name in the legal fraternity. From prosecuting in the historic Bofors case and the Bombay Bomb Blasts trial to defending convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Thiru. N. Natarajan’s career reflected a rare balance of prosecutorial rigor and deep constitutional compassion.

Admired for his humility, clarity of thought and impeccable ethics, he mentored generations of lawyers and judges, many of whom today occupy leading positions in the judiciary and the Bar. His legacy endures—not just in law reports and landmark judgements, but in the values he lived by and instilled in others: fairness, mentorship and intellectual integrity.

Thiru. N. Natarajan
The N. Natarajan Charitable Trust
Advancing Legal Excellence & Empowerment

Established by the juniors and disciples of Late Thiru. N. Natarajan, the N. Natarajan Charitable Trust stands as a living tribute to a life devoted to law, learning and service. With a mission to continue his vision of accessible and ethical legal education, the Trust focuses on empowering the next generation of students and lawyers—particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds.

Now in its decennial year, the Trust has been at the forefront of initiatives that blend scholarship with service: conducting National and State-level Moot Court Competitions, organizing Law Lecture Series featuring leading legal minds and sponsoring the education of deserving students who exemplify promise and perseverance.

Its core objectives are rooted in creating pathways for academic excellence, expanding access to legal education and nurturing a generation of legal professionals driven by principle, empathy, and public spirit.

The Moot Court Competition 2025
Honouring Legacy, Inspiring Advocacy

The N. Natarajan Charitable Trust Moot Court Competition, hosted in collaboration with the Madras Bar Association, is one of Tamil Nadu’s most prestigious State-level moot events. It is open to law students across Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and is envisioned as more than a contest—it is a courtroom experience.

What sets this competition apart is the depth of its authenticity. Adjudicated by sitting judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Court of Madras and leading Senior Advocates of the Madras Bar, every round mirrors the decorum, intensity and expectations of real-world legal proceedings.

Celebrating the Trusts decennium, the competition pays homage to Thiru. N. Natarajan’s legacy—championing the art of advocacy, the discipline of research and the ethics of legal practice. It is a platform where young minds not only test their skills but also encounter the ideals that defined Thiru. Natarajan’s life and practice.

MOOT PROPOSITION

  1. State of Tagaland is located in the south east peninsula of Indica with a population of nearly 8 crore people. About 23% of Tagaland’s population are senior citizens and about 11% thereof are pensioners in the State of Tagaland. Chera is its capital, a metropolitan city.
  2. In the Fiscal Policy Paper published by the Finance Department of Tagaland on 01.05.2024, it was mentioned that: “This pension scheme covers all employees of the State. At present there are 3,50,000 employees in Government who are covered under the Old Pension Scheme. In addition, there are 7,32,000 Pensioners and Family Pensioners receiving pension and family pension under the Scheme. Demand No.10 provides for a total expenditure of Rs.30,000 Crore towards pension and other pensionary benefits and that it would come into effect from 01.05.2024 and shall operate retrospectively.”
  3. The State of Tagaland had also mentioned its intention to create a technology-forward governance infrastructure, including digitization of pension records under the ‘Pension Pay’ Initiative. This initiative was a joint effort between the Department of Pensions, the Department of Electronics and Digital Systems, and private AI developers empanelled with the Tagaland Tech Vision Framework, 2023.
  4. The Demand also recorded that: "A web-enabled software to process the pension payment and to have a centralized database of the pensioners is implemented in all the Districts and Pension Pay Office, Chera. Under this scheme, the monthly pension and other retirement benefits to the pensioners are now credited directly to the bank account of pensioners through Electronic Clearing Service. A total number of 5,75,000 Pensioners have mustered Digital Life Certificate (Online) and 45,000 pensioners mustered by utilizing the door step services of Indica Post Payment Bank"
  5. To augment the reach of digital onboarding, pensioners were encouraged to visit the ‘Pension Pay’ web portal. This portal collected front-camera data and requested access to photo galleries for AI comparison of old photographs with live selfies. While the privacy policy of the portal stated that data would only be used for verification, it allowed third-party access under ‘technical consultancy’. The link to the portal ‘Pension Pay’ was available on the official website of the Tagaland Pension Department. Digital Life Certificate Online could be availed through e-verification involving Aadhaar two factor authentication and voice recognition. The portal stored in an online server, the Aadhaar information, voice data and the IP address of the user in its back-end in encrypted form.
  6. Mr.Rajesh, a retired Additional Secretary of Tagaland State Government, who superannuated on 02.07.2024, filed a complaint on 01.10.2024 with DCP Tagaland Cyber Crime Wing, Chera. The complaint stated the following:
    1. On 23.09.2024, I received a WhatsApp message from +91-9876543210 claiming to be from ‘Tagaland Pension Verification Cell’. The message contained an official looking logo and stated: “Dear Pensioner, due to AI system upgrade, verification of your pension account is mandatory. Click here to update your details within 48 hours to avoid pension suspension”. The link directed me to www.tagalandpensionverify.in which appeared identical to the official Pension Pay portal.
    2. I entered my pension ID, Aadhaar number, received an OTP, which I had entered. In the next screen, I was asked to enter the details of my bank account linked for the purpose of remittance of pension. When I entered the bank account details, I received an OTP for confirmation on my registered mobile. Upon entering the OTP, the next screen showed “verification successful”.
    3. Thereafter, to my shock and surprise, on 24.09.2024, I received an SMS from my banker that an amount of ₹2,47,000 was debited from my pension account in 4 multiple transactions. Upon my query, I was informed by my banker that the debit was made upon my approval through entering OTP on 23.09.2024. When I contacted the official Pension Pay Office, they informed me that no such verification was required and that the website is not the official website of the Pension Pay Office.”
  7. In the same week, several cyber complaints began to emerge in the city, where multiple pensioners reported failure to receive credits despite successful digital muster. Banks raised alerts about bulk transfers from pension accounts into a series of UPI-linked virtual wallets. Suspecting a large scale fraud and cyber theft, the CCW initiated preliminary inquiry on suspected unauthorized access, data theft and identity fraud in relation to ‘Pension Pay’.
  8. Investigation revealed the following modus operandi:
    1. A criminal syndicate led by Aaron (36), a software engineer from Bangalore, created an AI-powered system that scraped publicly available pension data from government websites and social media profiles of retired employees.
    2. The syndicate used deep-fake voice technology to make verification calls to pensioners, mimicking the voices of known government officials whose speeches were publicly available online.
    3. The website www.tagalandpensionverify.in was hosted on servers located in Eastern European countries and used SSL certificates to appear legitimate.
    4. The syndicate employed a network of money mules across different states to withdraw cash immediately after the fraudulent transactions.
    5. Pensioners who had used the portal for online life certification between 01.07.2024 and 25.09.2024 were the primary victims.
    6. During the investigation, the CCW recorded detailed statements from 47 affected pensioners. Mrs. Devi (72), a retired school principal, testified that on 15.09.2024, she received a voice call from someone claiming to be Mr. Suresh Kumar from Pension Pay Office. She stated: “The voice was exactly like our former District Collector who used to address us during retirement functions. I recognized his tone, his way of speaking, even his slight stutter when saying ‘verification’. That's why I trusted the call completely.” When shown audio recordings of the actual District Collector's speeches, she confirmed the striking similarity but noted subtle robotic undertones she had missed during the fraudulent call.
    7. Mr. Giri (68), a retired engineer, provided testimony about receiving a video call on WhatsApp from what appeared to be a Pension Department official. His statement recorded: “The person on video looked exactly like Mrs.Priya, Joint Director of Pensions, whom I had met personally during my retirement processing. Her appearance and the government office background were identical. When I later contacted Mrs.Priya, she confirmed she had never made such a call.” Technical analysis later revealed the video used Mrs.Priya’s photographs from official government websites combined with deepfake technology.
    8. During the investigation, it was discovered that the syndicate had (i) Hacked into the email accounts of 15 retired employees using credential stuffing attacks, accessing their correspondence with pension offices, (ii) Created fake mobile applications mimicking the official Pension Pay app, which were distributed through third party app stores and infected devices with malware and (iii) Used AI chatbots on social media platforms to identify potential victims by engaging them in conversations about pension-related grievances.
    9. The CCW’s technical analysis (via digital forensic toolkit) found traces of synthetic face generation tools being hosted on servers with IP addresses traced to a co working space in Chera for Trio Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (TTPL).
    10. Acting on digital intelligence and surveillance logs, the CCW raided TTPL’s co-working space on 18.10.2024 and seized 4 workstations, 7 hard drives, and a server. The Seizure Mahazar was prepared and two witnesses from the same co-working space were present.
    11. The seized digital devices were cloned at the spot using certified hardware duplicators, and hash values of each disk were recorded. The cloned copies were sent to the State Digital Evidence Forensic Laboratory, Chera, under chain of custody protocol.
  9. On 18.10.2024, Aaron, a graduate of Indica Institute of Technology with a dual degree in AI and cybersecurity, was arrested. He had previously interned at TTPL in 2024 and had developed a test environment for facial recognition spoof testing. While TTPL denied current association, records indicated Aaron retained back-end access credentials.
  10. At the time of arrest of Aaron at his residence in Chera, the CCW seized 3 laptops, 25 mobile phones, and hard drives containing data of over 50,000 pensioners. At the time of preparation of Seizure Mahazar no witnesses were present and Aaron refused to share the details of his family members when asked by Inspector, CCW at the time of arrest. Five money mules were apprehended from different locations.
  11. During interrogation Aaron consistently maintained that he was conducting ‘ethical penetration testing’ of the Pension Pay system. He claimed his activities were intended to expose vulnerabilities in the government's cybersecurity infrastructure. Aaron's statement to police recorded: “I am an ethical hacker. My deepfake algorithms and penetration tools were developed to demonstrate how easily the Pension Pay system could be compromised by malicious actors. I never intended to cause financial harm.”
  12. Forensic analysis revealed that the seized devices contained (a) Sophisticated AI algorithms designed to create personalized phishing messages based on victims’ psychological profiles, (b) Database of government employees' personal information, including family details, 9 obtained through various illegal means,(c) Communication logs showing coordination with international cybercriminal networks and (d) Cryptocurrency wallets containing the equivalent of ₹15 crores in various digital currencies.
  13. The CCW gave a public statement that during custodial interrogation Aaron confessed (though this was later disputed by the defense) that he created synthetic deepfakes by training the model on open-access images of pensioners found through their social media account pages. These were run through a style-transfer filter to age-match them and that he had used the insider knowledge about the Pension Pay system’s vulnerabilities.
  14. The Inspector of Police, CCW filed Charge Sheet dated 01.11.2024 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chera, under Sections 111, 113, 318, 319(2), 336, 340, and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 66C, 66D and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Sections 39 and 42 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. The five mules were charged under Section 317 read with 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
  15. The trial commenced in January 2025 and featured heavy reliance on electronic evidence, including chat logs recovered 10 from the devices seized from Aaron and automated results derived by decision making systems of the CCW, witness testimony of forensic analysts who explained the hash match of seized devices and Expert evidence from professors on the working of facial spoofing.
  16. Seventeen pensioners testified about receiving personalized voice messages on their registered mobile numbers. The messages used the voices of deceased former officials, including the late Chief Secretary, whose voice was synthesized using his archived speech recordings from government events. The CCW's victim impact assessment revealed that 89% of the affected pensioners cited ‘voice recognition’ and ‘familiar official appearance’ as primary reasons for trusting the fraudulent communications.
  17. During cross-examination of victims by the defense, several pensioners admitted they noticed minor inconsistencies but dismissed them as technical glitches. Mr. Gopal (71) testified: “The lip movement seemed slightly off when the official was speaking, and there was a brief delay in responses, but I attributed it to poor internet connection. The voice and face were so convincing that these small issues didn't raise any red flags.” This testimony became crucial evidence for establishing how sophisticated deepfake technology can deceive even cautious individuals.
  18. The prosecution presented expert testimony from Dr. Sarah, a forensic audio analyst, who examined the voice recordings recovered from victims' devices. Her analysis revealed: “The synthetic voices contained micro-patterns consistent with neural voice cloning technology. While imperceptible to human ears, spectral analysis showed artificial harmonics and timing irregularities typical of AI-generated speech. The deepfake videos exhibited pixel-level inconsistencies in facial mapping and lighting that are hallmarks of generative adversarial networks”.
  19. The defence challenged the chain of custody on the grounds that the forensic clones were not sealed in tamper-proof containers, one device’s hash value differed by one character (suggesting possible alteration) and that Aaron’s so-called ‘confession’ was extracted without his lawyer present and under duress.
  20. The defence also argued that the electronic evidence was inadmissible, certificate under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), cannot be admitted unless cross-examined and validated by the original algorithm developer. The Trial Court, admitted the electronic evidence 12 produced by the prosecution and overruled the objection by observing that the electronic records were ‘maintained in regular course of activity by authorized systems shall be presumed genuine unless proved otherwise’.
  21. Aaron's defense presented evidence that he had previously submitted vulnerability reports to various government departments through responsible disclosure channels. The defense produced an undated letter, where Aaron had allegedly attempted to contact the Tagaland Cyber Security Cell to report potential vulnerabilities in the Pension Pay portal. However, the prosecution contested the authenticity of the letter, arguing it was created post-facto to construct a defense narrative. Aaron claimed he received no response to his vulnerability disclosure attempt, leading him to conduct “live testing” to gather concrete evidence of the system's weaknesses.
  22. Expert witness Dr.Rajesh, a cybersecurity professor from Indica Institute of Technology and Aaron's former thesis supervisor, testified for the defense. He stated: “Aaron's academic work focused on AI-based social engineering defense mechanisms. The tools found in his possession are standard components of ethical hacking toolkits. Deepfake generation capabilities are essential for testing an organization's susceptibility to synthetic media attacks. The mere possession of these tools does not establish criminal intent.”
  23. Aaron's defense counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial element of mens rea and that Aaron's actions fell within the recognized practice of “authorized testing without explicit permission”.
  24. The prosecution countered Aaron's ethical hacker defense by highlighting several factors: (a) No formal authorization from any government department for penetration testing, (b) The scale and sophistication of the operation involving multiple money mules across states, (c) The creation of an elaborate fake website designed to deceive rather than demonstrate vulnerabilities, (d) The actual financial theft from victims, and (e) The use of cryptocurrency wallets to launder proceeds, which went beyond mere vulnerability demonstration.
  25. On 28.03.2025, the Sessions Court convicted Aaron, sentencing him to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹50 lakhs. The judgment held that Aaron used AI to subvert public benefit and noted that while AI may be neutral, its deployment without ethical guardrails was an offence. The five mules were sentenced to 2 years simple imprisonment and fine of ₹5 lakhs each.
  26. Aaron filed an appeal before the High Court of Tagaland in April 2025, contesting (a) Violation of Article 21 (due process and privacy), (b) that BNSS and BSA enabled a ‘presumption of guilt’ by relying on machines without transparent accountability, (c) that the use of deepfake detection reports cannot be a substitute for human testimony, and (d) that there was no legislative framework governing AI evidence or standards for biometric falsification.
  27. On the day when the matter was posted for Judgment before the High Court, Aaron's defense team filed a petition under Section 245 of BNSS, 2023 requesting the Court to recognize the “Ethical Hacker Defense” as a valid legal justification, arguing that the current legal framework inadequately distinguishes between malicious cybercriminals and legitimate security researchers. They contended that Aaron's prosecution would have a chilling effect on cybersecurity research and vulnerability disclosure in the country.
  28. The High Court confirmed the conviction, however, the reasoning and basis of conviction by the two Learned Judges of the Division Bench were on different/ independent grounds. One Learned Judge, while confirming the order of 15 conviction and the sentence, noted the lack of a legal framework on synthetic media and expressed serious concerns about admissibility standards of such AI tools and called for legislative reforms to establish ‘algorithmic due process’.
  29. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, Aaron has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica challenging the judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction, the constitutionality of Sections 63 of BSA, the absence of an AI Evidence Admissibility Protocol and the denial of his right to confront digital evidence in violation of fair trial principles under Article 21. The matter is placed before Five Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for final hearing on all issues.

NOTE:

  • The political structure, legal system and legislation of the Indica are in pari materia with that of the Republic of India.
  • Participants are at liberty to construct their own issues and present arguments for the same which may enable the Supreme Court to render a final and binding decision.

DISCLAIMER:

  1. The facts stated in the Moot Proposition are fictitious and not intended to resemble any incident or any person living or dead. Any resemblance to any incident or person (if any), is not intended, but merely co-incidental.
  2. This Moot proposition has been drafted by Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa & Mr.Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Advocates, High Court of Madras and was settled by Mr. M.K. Kabir, Senior Advocate.
  3. Any attempt to contact the aforementioned person/ persons in relation to this Competition directly or indirectly will qualify as scouting and the Organisers reserve the right to take any appropriate action, including disqualification and/or blacklisting the participating institution and/or the members found engaging in such conduct.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. GENERAL RULES
1.1 DATE & VENUE OF THE COMPETITION:

The N. Natarajan Charitable Trust Moot Court Competition 2025 in association with The Madras Bar Association will be held from September 19th 2025 – September 21st 2025 at the Madras Bar Association, High Court Buildings, Madras High Court, Chennai-600 104 and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry. The Final Round will be held in the New Auditorium, High Court of Madras.

1.2 TEAM ELIGIBILITY & TEAM COMPOSITION:
  1. Participation is strictly restricted to bona fide law students enrolled in the three-year or five-year LL.B. or L.L.B. degree course in any institution in Tamil Nadu.
  2. Only one team is permitted to participate from each registered institution.
  3. Each team shall comprise of a minimum of two and a maximum of three members. In a team consisting of two members, each of the members shall be designated as ‘Speaker’. In a team consisting of three members, two of the members shall be designated as ‘Speaker’ and the third member shall be designated as ‘Researcher’.
1.3 REGISTRATION PROCEDURE:
  1. Provisional Registration of the participating institution (filled in Annexure-1 Form with the seal of the Institution) shall be sent by e-mail to nnmootcommittee@gmail.com on or before 18th August, 2025, 11:59 PM.
  2. Upon emailing the Provisional Registration, Google Form available at https://forms.gle/kpPM1q8rr1dJqW3a7 to be filled on or before 18th August, 2025, 11:59 PM.
    Registration QR Code Scan the QR Code to fill the Google Form
  3. The Organizing Committee shall confirm the participation of the Institution by a Confirmation Email on 20th August, 2025
  4. On receipt of such Confirmation Email alone, the Provisional Registration of that Institution is deemed to have been accepted and confirmed for participation. The Confirmation Email shall contain the Team Code assigned by the Organizing Committee and the Participating Teams shall specify only the Team Code in all their Correspondences.
  5. The confirmed Teams shall complete the Registration Formalities by sending the Hard Copy of the said Registration Form (Annexure-1) so as to reach the Organising Committee on or before 27th August, 2025, 11:59 PM via Speed Post or Courier along with the D.D. for a sum of Rs.1,000/- in favour of “The N. NATARAJAN CHARITABLE TRUST”. The address for correspondence is as specified in Rule 9.1.
  6. No alteration in the Team Composition shall be permitted after the receipt of the Registration Form, except at the sole discretion of the Organizing Committee.
  7. The duly filled Travel Form (Annexure-II) is to be e-mailed to nnmootcommittee@gmail.com on or before 10th September, 2025, 11:59 PM.
1.4 DRESS CODE:
  1. Participants shall be appropriately attired for the rounds of the competition. Robes and collar bands are not permitted.
  2. The Dress Code for the Inauguration, Researcher’s Test, Oral Rounds and Valedictory & Prize Distribution shall strictly be: i. For Gentlemen - Western Formals (White formal shirt with black formal pants and a black blazer); and ii. For Ladies - Western Formals (White formal shirt with black formal pants/black formal skirt and a black blazer) or Indian Formals (white kurta with black pants and either a black waistcoat or black blazer).
  3. On other occasions while on campus, participants may wear casuals or formals at their convenience.
2. CLARIFICATIONS
Clarifications to the Moot Proposition and the Rules regarding submission of the Memorandum shall be sought by sending an e-mail to nnmootcommittee@gmail.com on or before 22nd August, 2025, 11:59 PM. Clarifications sent after this date shall not be entertained.

3. MEMORANDUM/WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
3.1 SUBMISSION OF MEMORANDUM:
  1. Participants are required to submit Memorandums or Written Submissions for both the Petitioner and the Respondent. b. Teams shall e-mail two Soft Copies each of the Memorandums, in PDF and Microsoft Word formats, i.e. four (4) separate file attachments, titled “Team Code P” and “Team Code R” for the Petitioner and Respondent respectively, on or before 8th September, 2025, 11:59 PM to nnmootcommittee@gmail.com. For example, if the assigned team code is 21, the team shall title the Memorandums as “21P” and “21R” respectively. The Soft Copy should be compatible with at least Microsoft Word 2003. Late submission shall attract penalties in accordance with Rule 3.3.
  2. Only the Team Code shall be specified on the Memorandum. Any reference to the participating institution/ college/university shall result in immediate disqualification.
  3. Teams shall send Two (2) Hard Copies each of the Petitioner 21 and Respondent Memorandums on or before 15th September, 2025, 11:59 PM via Speed Post or Courier to the address mentioned in Rule 9.1. Late submission shall attract penalties in accordance with Rule 3.3. On mailing the Hard Copy, participants are requested to e-mail nnmootcommittee@gmail.com providing the relevant Tracking ID or Tracing Consignment Number of the Speed Post or Courier service.
  4. No amendment to the memorandum shall be permitted after submission of the soft copies. Variation found in the Hard Copy shall be penalised in accordance with Rule 3.3.
  5. Six (6) Hard Copies of each of the Petitioner and Respondent Memorandums shall be submitted during the Team Registration on 19th September, 2025.
  6. Participants are advised to carry additional copies of their Memorandum for their own use. Copies submitted to the Organizing Committee shall be used for the evaluation of the Memorandum, for the Exchange of Memorandum and for the Judges Bench for each of the Oral Rounds.
  7. The Organizing Committee reserves the right to use the memorandum submitted by the participating teams, as it deems appropriate. The memorandum submitted shall not be returned to the participants.
3.2 CONTENTS OF THE MEMORANDUM:
  1. Each Memorandum shall contain at least the following sections:
    • Cover Page (shall include Year of the Competition, Cause Title, Forum/Court, designation as Petitioner or Respondent Memo, Team Code on the top right corner - e.g. 21P or 21R)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index of Authorities
    • Statement of Jurisdiction (strictly restrict to 1 page) v. Summary/Statement of Facts (strictly restrict to 1 page; argumentative Statement of Facts shall be penalised) vi. Issues Raised/Questions Presented
    • Summary of Arguments/Pleadings
    • Arguments Advanced/Written Pleadings (strictly restrict to 20 pages or less)
    • Prayer
  2. The following content specifications shall be strictly adhered to: Language: English Body Font & Size: Times New Roman, 12; Line Spacing: 1.5 [The spacing need not be followed for the Cover Page, any Tabular Column, Header or Footer] Footnotes Font & Size: Times New Roman, 10; Line Spacing: 1.0; Paragraph Spacing: None; No additional space between footnotes Alignment (Body & Footnotes): Justified Margin: 1 inch on all 4 sides Citation Method: The Bluebook, A Uniform System of Citation, Harvard Law Review, 19th edition Substantive Footnoting is strictly prohibited.
  3. The following printing specifications shall be strictly adhered to:
    • The Cover Page shall be: Blue for Petitioner Memorandum and Red for Respondent Memorandum
    • Only white A4 sized paper shall be used for all other pages. Use of recycled papers is encouraged.
    • The Memorandums shall be printed on both sides. Each side shall be counted as one page.
    • The Memorandums shall be staple bound with two/three staples on the left margin. No other form of binding shall be accepted. The use of plastic/cellophane sheets or films shall attract penalties.
    • The Memorandums shall not contain any Annexures/ Appendices, Photographs, Sketches, Exhibits, Affidavits, etc.
3.3 EVALUATION OF THE MEMORANDUM:
  1. Each Memorandum shall be marked on a total of 100 points. The Memorandum Score added to the Oral Rounds Score during the Preliminary Rounds shall be for the respective Round, i.e. the Petitioner Memorandum Score shall be added to the Oral Score while arguing for the Petitioner and the Respondent Memorandum Score shall be added to the Oral Score while arguing for the Respondent.
  2. The Best Memorandum Award shall be given to the team with the highest aggregate score out of 200 for both the Memorandums.
  3. The Memorandum will be evaluated by a separate panel of judges who will not Judge in the Oral Rounds.
  4. The Memorandum Score will be used in determining the fixtures for the Preliminary Rounds in accordance with Rule 4.5. e. The following shall be the judging criteria:
    Knowledge of law & depth of research 20
    Use of authority/precedents 20
    Incorporation of facts into the arguments 10
    Interpretation of applicable law 10
    Clarity of thought and organization of arguments 15
    Style of Presentation 10
    Originality 10
    Relief sought 5
  5. Penalties shall be attracted in the following manner:
    Violation Penalty
    Late Submission - Soft Copy 1 point per day per Memo
    Late Submission - Hard Copy 2 points per day per Memo
    Any violation under Rule 3.2 (a) 1 point for each violation under the Rule
    Any violation under Rule 3.2 (b) 0.5 point for each violation under the Rule
    Any violation under Rule 3.2 (c) 1 point for each violation under the Rule
    Violation in content between Soft Copy and Hard Copy 0.5 point for each variation
    Violation of Anonymity Disqualification
4. ORAL ROUNDS
4.1 GENERAL PROCEDURE:
  1. Teams are requested to bring their appropriate institution ID cards along with the six (6) hard copies of the Memorandums for each side to be submitted during the formal registration on 19th September, 2025.
  2. The language to be used during the Rounds is English.
  3. The Competition shall consist of the following rounds:
    1. Preliminary Rounds; and
    2. Advanced Rounds:
    3. Quarter Finals
    4. Semi Finals
    5. Finals
  4. During each of the abovementioned rounds, the order in which the teams shall present their arguments is as follows:
    1. Petitioner Speaker 1
    2. Petitioner Speaker 2
    3. Respondent Speaker 1
    4. Respondent Speaker 2
    5. Rebuttal: Petitioner - Any one of the two Speakers vi. Sur-rebuttal: Respondent - Any one of the two Speakers.(Sur-rebuttal may be permitted only at the discretion of the Judges)
  5. The Best Speaker Award shall be determined on the basis of the individual aggregate score of the Speaker taken only from the Preliminary Rounds.
  6. The Researcher shall not be permitted to address the Court during the Oral Rounds. The Researcher may however, be permitted to pass notes to the Speakers at the discretion of the Judges.
  7. Teams are not permitted to raise issues in the Oral Rounds that have not been submitted in the Memorandum.
  8. The use of mobile phones, laptops, or any other electronic gadgets is strictly prohibited during the Oral Rounds. i. Participants may use their own bare acts, print outs and commentaries provided that anonymity is not violated during the Rounds.
  9. The decision of the Judges as to the marks allotted to each team shall be final.
  10. So as to ensure uniformity in the marking system all Judges will be provided with a scoring guideline.
4.2 SPLITTING OF TIME BETWEEN SPEAKERS
  1. Teams shall notify the Bench Clerks of the division of time between the 2 Speakers (including time reserved for Rebuttal & Sur-rebuttal) 10 minutes prior to the commencement of the Rounds.
  2. If Speaker 1 exceeds his/her reserved time, the additional time taken shall be deducted from the time reserved by Speaker 2. Similarly, if Speaker 2 exceeds his/her reserved time, the 27 additional time taken shall be deducted from the time reserved for Rebuttals/Sur-Rebuttals as the case may be. This rule may not be followed if additional time is awarded at the discretion of Judges to not be deducted from the time of the subsequent Speaker.
  3. While granting additional time, if the additional number of minutes granted is not specified by the Judges, it shall be presumed that the additional time granted is 2 minutes.
  4. The finality of the decision as to the time structure and the right to Rebut or Sur-rebut shall vest with the Judges.
4.3 COMPENDIUM:
  1. All relevant case laws and statutory material to be passed on to the Judges during the Oral Rounds may be submitted in the form of a Compendium 15 minutes prior to the commencement of the Rounds to the Bench Clerks.
  2. The Compendium shall not exceed 50 pages whether printed on one side or both sides. For this purpose, each side shall be considered as one page.
  3. Participants are also permitted to pass on relevant material to the Judges, at their discretion, any time after the commencement of the Rounds and before its completion.
  4. The Compendium or other relevant materials shall be returned to the participants after the completion of each Round. e. Participants shall ensure that anonymity is not violated while passing on any material to present, participants must ensure that the same is rendered unrecognizable.
4.4 EXCHANGE OF MEMORANDUM:
  1. The exchange of memorandum shall take place prior to each Oral Round as planned in the Tentative Schedule.
  2. Teams are prohibited from making any marks on the memorandum thus exchanged. Teams are also prohibited from taking photocopies of such memorandums.
  3. The opponent’s memorandum shall be returned to the Bench Clerks after the completion of each Round.
4.5 PRELIMINARY ROUNDS:
  1. Every team shall argue twice in the Preliminary Rounds, once for the Petitioner and once for the Respondent.
  2. No two teams shall face each other more than once in the Preliminary Rounds.
  3. The fixtures for the Preliminary Rounds shall be decided by the Organizing Committee.
  4. Each side shall get a maximum time of 30 minutes to present their arguments of which no Speaker shall be permitted to address the Court for more than 18 minutes. The time limit is inclusive of the time for Rebuttal or Sur rebuttal respectively. The maximum time for Rebuttal is 2 minutes and the maximum time for Sur-rebuttal is 1 minute.
  5. The top eight teams shall qualify to the Advanced Rounds on the basis of the maximum number of wins per team in 29 the Preliminary Rounds. In the event of a tie, the aggregate score of the team in their Oral Rounds alone shall be considered.
  6. The Best Speaker Award will be awarded on the basis of the scores awarded to the Speakers in the Preliminary Rounds.
4.6 ADVANCED ROUNDS:
  1. Every team shall argue once in each of the Advanced Rounds.
  2. The side to be argued shall be determined on a Pick of Lots after the declaration of results of Preliminary Rounds
  3. The qualification of teams to subsequent rounds shall be on a knock-out basis for each of the Advanced Rounds. In the event of a tie, the aggregate score of the team shall be considered.
4.6.1 QUARTER-FINALS
  1. The maximum time for arguments per side shall be the same as in the Preliminary Rounds.
  2. The Winners of the Quarter-final shall advance to the Semi-finals.
4.6.2 SEMI-FINALS
  1. Each side shall get a maximum time of 45 minutes to present their arguments of which no Speaker shall be permitted to address the Court for more than 25 minutes. The time limit is inclusive of the time for Rebuttal or Sur-rebuttal respectively. The maximum time for Rebuttal is 5 minutes 30 seconds and the maximum time for Sur-rebuttal is 2 minutes.
  2. The Winners of the Semi-finals shall advance to the Final.
4.6.3 FINAL
  1. The maximum time for arguments per side shall be the same as in the Semi-finals.
  2. The Winner of the Final Round shall be declared the Winner of the Competition.
  3. The Best Speaker in the Finals shall be determined based on the individual scores of the Speakers in the Final.
4.7 SCOUTING
  1. Scouting is strictly prohibited.
  2. Any person may submit a complaint regarding Scouting to the organizing committee.
  3. Teams found scouting shall be disqualified immediately.
5. RESEARCHER’S TEST
  1. The Researcher’s Test shall be conducted on the 20th September, 2025.
  2. In a team consisting of three members, the member designated as Researcher shall take part in the test. In a team consisting of two members, one of the two Speakers shall take part in the test.
  3. Participants are requested to write only the Team Code on the question paper.
  4. The Researcher’s Test shall be in the format of Multiple Choice Questions with the questions based on the applicable law, precedents, and facts pertaining to the Moot Proposition.
  5. The duration of the Researcher’s Test shall be 45 minutes.
  6. No additional material such as the bare text of Acts, Memorandum, etc., apart from stationery, may be brought by the participant to the test and no such material shall be provided by the Organizing Committee.
  7. The Winner of the Test shall be determined by the highest score attained and negative marking shall not be given while evaluating.
6. AWARDS

The following Awards shall be given away during the Valedictory & Prize Distribution:

  • Winner of the Competition: Cash Prize and Trophy
  • Runner-up of the Competition: Cash Prize and Trophy
  • Best Memorandum: Cash Prize and Trophy
  • Best Speaker in Final: Cash Prize and Trophy
  • Best Speaker: Cash Prize and Trophy
  • Best Researcher: Cash Prize and Trophy
  1. All participants of the Competition will be given Certificates.
  2. All teams shall be present during the Valedictory & Prize Distribution. Certificates will only be given to the teams present during the Valedictory & Prize Distribution.
  3. The Organizing Committee reserves the right to announce and award additional prizes if it deems fit and necessary.
7. ACCOMMODATION, TRANSPORT & FOOD:
  1. Transport shall be arranged by the participating teams.
  2. Accommodation may be provided at the discretion of the Organizer to deserving students on request.
  3. Food shall be provided to the teams from the afternoon of 19th September, 2025 till the afternoon of 21st September, 2025.
  4. Any specific requirements regarding accommodation must be specified in the Travel Form. Such requirements may be accommodated at the discretion of the Organizing Committee.
  5. Facilities such as photocopying, library usage, internet connectivity, etc. may be provided subject to the convenience of the Organizing Committee and will be informed to the teams closer to the commencement of the Competition. Irrespective, participants are requested to make their own arrangements for the same.
  6. All facilities shall be provided only to the registered members of a team and no additional members, parents, observers, coaches or faculty advisors shall be accommodated.
8. MISCELLANEOUS
8.1 GENERAL ETIQUETTE:
  1. Participants are expected to behave in a dignified manner and not to cause any inconvenience to the Organizing Committee, the Judges of the Competition or any of the other participants.
  2. The Organizing Committee reserves the right to take appropriate action for any unethical, unprofessional or immoral conduct.
8.2 INTERPRETATION OF RULES & REGULATIONS:
  1. All interpretations, as well as any waivers, consents or other decisions in the administration of the Competition are at the complete discretion of the Organizing Committee.
  2. Any decision made by the Organizing Committee shall be final and binding on all participating teams.
9. CORRESPONDENCE/CONTACT DETAILS
9.1 REGISTRATION FORMALITIES & MEMORANDUM SUBMISSIONS:

The physical address for correspondence for all Registration Formalities and Memorandum Submissions is:
Organizing Committee,
The N. Natarajan Charitable Trust Moot Court Competition, 2025
1K, Gaiety Palace, 1st Floor, Blackers Road,
Chennai 600 002, Tamil Nadu, India.

9.2 MOOT PROPOSITION AND RULES & REGULATIONS:

Any and all clarifications regarding the Moot Proposition and Rules & Regulations shall be sought only via e-mail to nnmootcommittee@gmail.com.

9.3 OTHER QUERIES:

Any other queries (other than the Moot Problem) may be directed to the Event Convenor:
Miss. Shakeenaa Abdul Gafoor – +91 94441 85045

Any queries/clarifications regarding the Moot Problem or the Rules of the Competition shall only be in writing, addressed to the email ID provided above.

Event Schedule – 2025

18th July 2025

Release of Moot Proposition, its Rules & Commencement of Registration

18th August 2025, 11:59 PM

Last date to register to participate in the Moot Court Competition

20th August 2025

Organizing Committee shall confirm the participation of the Institution by a confirmation email

22nd August 2025, 11:59 PM

Last date for seeking clarification on the Moot Proposition or Rules

27th August 2025

Registration formalities to be completed along with DD via Speed Post / Courier, Release of Clarification, if any

2nd September 2025

Travel Form to be emailed

8th September 2025, 11:59 PM

Submission of the soft copies of the Memorandum via email

15th September 2025 , 11:59 PM

Submission of 2 hard copies of each Petitioner and Respondent Memorandum via Speed Post / Courier

19th September 2025

Inaugural and Preliminary Rounds of The N. Natarajan Charitable Trust Moot Court Competition 2025

20th September 2025

Advanced Rounds and Researchers Test

21st September 2025

Finals and Valedictory Ceremony of The N. Natarajan Charitable Trust Moot Court Competition 2025